7 ms·

>I also don't see how Ecuador is part of an "anti-American bloc" given that they are a democratic state and literally use the US dollar as their official curren

by notpc 10y ago

>I also don't see how Ecuador is part of an "anti-American bloc" given that they are a democratic state and literally use the US dollar as their official currency. You should familiarize yourself more then, with Rafael Correa, Hugo Chavez, and their foreign policy and overseas allies.

dpark 10y ago
I should have left that out. The real point was to address the claim that he "fled to our adversaries". There are realistically no neutral parties that he could have fled to. I'll just concede on the Ecuadorian anti-Americanism. I don't think they're the worst but they are certainly not a dear friend.
- notpc 10y ago
  The whole thing seems very cowardly. If Snowden truly thought he was acting in the best interests of his country, he could have: 1. Leaked only information about the NSA spying on Americans within the US. 2. Stayed within the US and faced the music. Instead, he damaged America's ability to collect intelligence on foreign countries by revealing our capabilities, and then fled into the arms of our adversaries who have used him as a propaganda piece. Our country exists with the freedom, prosperity, and influence we enjoy today because millions of men were willing to march to their deaths for it. Meanwhile, Snowden can't even face a jury of his peers for an act of civil disobedience? He must not think much of his cause.
  - dpark 10y ago
    This is a tired trope. Even if it's true that belief in a cause requires a willingness to die, that doesn't mean that it requires one to actually die. I don't see how Snowden staying around for a life or death sentence would have done anything useful for his cause. It's not "cowardly" to want to avoid life in a federal prison or death by lethal injection. You're just spouting soundbytes. You restated the "fled into the arms of our adversaries" line nearly verbatim but ignore the fact that there's nowhere else to "flee" because any country not willing to extradite him to the US is de facto "anti-American". You say he damaged our ability to collect data but don't have any proof. Was it embarrassing to the nation? Sure. Is there proof that it actually harmed us? I'm not aware of any. You also call him a coward as if level of bravery is relevant to treason as opposed to a pure appeal to emotion over logic.
    - notpc 10y ago
      >You say he damaged our ability to collect data but don't have any proof. The damage is very obvious. He revealed a bunch of mediums that the NSA had the capability to monitor. Any sophisticated actor that wants to avoid US intelligence is now avoiding those mediums. My point is that he didn't have to flee. Instead he fled into the arms of those who stand to gain the most from his knowledge of our intelligence capabilities. Putin is not giving him asylum for free. I'm sure he's getting something out of it, if just the ability to use Snowden as as a propaganda piece and negotiating chip. It'd probably be hard to make a treason charge legally stick, but I believe it is what he is morally guilty of. There are plenty of things that he is plainly guilty of that carry equivalently harsh sentences. You're right, he had nowhere else to flee but the enemies of the United States. But that doesn't change the fact that he fled, nor where he fled to. He did not have to flee. And yes, I think he's a coward for it.
      - dpark 10y ago
        The damage is so obvious that you can't cite a concrete example? Do you think other nations were actually unaware that we hack into computer systems and tap phone lines? The idea that Snowden should have stayed in the US strikes me as petty and naive. If he's a coward for fleeing instead of spending life in prison then I suspect the vast, vast majority of the population are also cowards.
        notpc 10y ago
        I doubt that Angela Merkel, or 35 other world leaders, knew we were listening to their phone calls. I doubt the EU knew that several of their offices were bugged by US intelligence. The same goes for the embassies of 38 countries that we had bugged. I doubt that Al Jazeera knew that we were monitoring their internal communications. Even though some people said it was possible that Dual_EC_DRBG was 'backdoored', RSA Security was still using it as its default for some products. Look at this list here: http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2016-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2016-9 All of these people who were successfully spied on before, and others in similar positions, are now surely much more careful and focused on securing their communications. Even if they had reason to suspect that America would try to spy on them, they probably didn't know that their countermeasures (if any) had failed. If they haven't since switched to much more secure communications methods, then they are stupid and should be prosecuted for criminal negligence with their own country's secrets. How can you possibly expect concrete examples of information that we don't get? I'm sure there's some specific things that we know we don't know, but why would the United States advertise to the world which of their new countermeasures are and aren't working?

by notpc 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

I should have left that out. The real point was to address the claim that he "fled to our adversaries". There are realistically no neutral parties that he could have fled to. I'll just concede on the Ecuadorian anti-Americanism. I don't think they're the worst but they are certainly not a dear friend.

notpc 10y ago
The whole thing seems very cowardly. If Snowden truly thought he was acting in the best interests of his country, he could have: 1. Leaked only information about the NSA spying on Americans within the US. 2. Stayed within the US and faced the music. Instead, he damaged America's ability to collect intelligence on foreign countries by revealing our capabilities, and then fled into the arms of our adversaries who have used him as a propaganda piece. Our country exists with the freedom, prosperity, and influence we enjoy today because millions of men were willing to march to their deaths for it. Meanwhile, Snowden can't even face a jury of his peers for an act of civil disobedience? He must not think much of his cause.
- dpark 10y ago
  This is a tired trope. Even if it's true that belief in a cause requires a willingness to die, that doesn't mean that it requires one to actually die. I don't see how Snowden staying around for a life or death sentence would have done anything useful for his cause. It's not "cowardly" to want to avoid life in a federal prison or death by lethal injection. You're just spouting soundbytes. You restated the "fled into the arms of our adversaries" line nearly verbatim but ignore the fact that there's nowhere else to "flee" because any country not willing to extradite him to the US is de facto "anti-American". You say he damaged our ability to collect data but don't have any proof. Was it embarrassing to the nation? Sure. Is there proof that it actually harmed us? I'm not aware of any. You also call him a coward as if level of bravery is relevant to treason as opposed to a pure appeal to emotion over logic.
  - notpc 10y ago
    >You say he damaged our ability to collect data but don't have any proof. The damage is very obvious. He revealed a bunch of mediums that the NSA had the capability to monitor. Any sophisticated actor that wants to avoid US intelligence is now avoiding those mediums. My point is that he didn't have to flee. Instead he fled into the arms of those who stand to gain the most from his knowledge of our intelligence capabilities. Putin is not giving him asylum for free. I'm sure he's getting something out of it, if just the ability to use Snowden as as a propaganda piece and negotiating chip. It'd probably be hard to make a treason charge legally stick, but I believe it is what he is morally guilty of. There are plenty of things that he is plainly guilty of that carry equivalently harsh sentences. You're right, he had nowhere else to flee but the enemies of the United States. But that doesn't change the fact that he fled, nor where he fled to. He did not have to flee. And yes, I think he's a coward for it.
    - dpark 10y ago
      The damage is so obvious that you can't cite a concrete example? Do you think other nations were actually unaware that we hack into computer systems and tap phone lines? The idea that Snowden should have stayed in the US strikes me as petty and naive. If he's a coward for fleeing instead of spending life in prison then I suspect the vast, vast majority of the population are also cowards.
      - notpc 10y ago
        I doubt that Angela Merkel, or 35 other world leaders, knew we were listening to their phone calls. I doubt the EU knew that several of their offices were bugged by US intelligence. The same goes for the embassies of 38 countries that we had bugged. I doubt that Al Jazeera knew that we were monitoring their internal communications. Even though some people said it was possible that Dual_EC_DRBG was 'backdoored', RSA Security was still using it as its default for some products. Look at this list here: http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2016-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2016-9 All of these people who were successfully spied on before, and others in similar positions, are now surely much more careful and focused on securing their communications. Even if they had reason to suspect that America would try to spy on them, they probably didn't know that their countermeasures (if any) had failed. If they haven't since switched to much more secure communications methods, then they are stupid and should be prosecuted for criminal negligence with their own country's secrets. How can you possibly expect concrete examples of information that we don't get? I'm sure there's some specific things that we know we don't know, but why would the United States advertise to the world which of their new countermeasures are and aren't working?